View Full Version : A new ice age within the next 10 years?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/14/ice_age/
What may be the science story of the century is breaking this evening, as heavyweight US solar physicists announce that the Sun appears to be headed into a lengthy spell of low activity, which could mean that the Earth – far from facing a global warming problem – is actually headed into a mini Ice Age.
The announcement made on 14 June (18:00 UK time) comes from scientists at the US National Solar Observatory (NSO) and US Air Force Research Laboratory. Three different analyses of the Sun's recent behaviour all indicate that a period of unusually low solar activity may be about to begin.
This could have major implications for the Earth's climate. According to a statement issued by the NSO, announcing the research:
An immediate question is whether this slowdown presages a second Maunder Minimum, a 70-year period with virtually no sunspots [which occurred] during 1645-1715.
As NASA notes (http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml):
Early records of sunspots indicate that the Sun went through a period of inactivity in the late 17th century. Very few sunspots were seen on the Sun from about 1645 to 1715. Although the observations were not as extensive as in later years, the Sun was in fact well observed during this time and this lack of sunspots is well documented. This period of solar inactivity also corresponds to a climatic period called the "Little Ice Age" when rivers that are normally ice-free froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower altitudes. There is evidence that the Sun has had similar periods of inactivity in the more distant past.
I wonder how this could affect our environmental policies?
What environmental policies? What little we had went out the window the last election cycle. We sure as hell don't want to disrupt "bidness" now do we? A full 50+% in this nation doesn't even believe in Climate Change - human caused or otherwise. If 96% of the scientists of the world said we have a virus that would eventually kill millions we would demand change but the climate seems to be controlled by magic not science.
Peace
What environmental policies? What little we had window the last election cycle. We sure as hell don't want to disrupt "bidness" now do we? A full 50+% in this nation doesn't even believe in Climate Change - human caused or otherwise. If 96% of the scientists of the world said we have a virus that would eventually kill millions we would demand change but the climate seems to be controlled by magic not science.
Peace
I believe the climate isn't actually controlled.
I was thinking of the latest round of EPA regulations designed to decrease greenhouse gas emissions and increase energy costs.
ApatheticNoMore
6-15-11, 2:02pm
Honestly if the solar physicists was correct that might be very good news. But really one solar physicist doesn't exactly equal the weight of evidence global warming has behind it at present. I'm not even saying it's totally impossible, just that the weight of almost all the evidence is behind human caused global warming at present.
As for environmental policies, I don't think global warming is the extent of our environmental problems. Ok global warming is MAJOR and a really really thorny difficult issue, perhaps one of the most difficult to actually collectively solve (and hence we don't and things have been getting worse and worse). But fossil fuels aren't infinite anyway, and since those most easily accessible are running out, the one's we are currently using are causing more and more environmental problems (deep water drilling, water pollution caused by fracking, etc.). We have major major issues with water, ground water aquifers populated in the ice age are being depleted. We have problems with how agriculture is done and how it is polluting the oceans, destroying top soil etc.. We have problems with overfishing and how fish populations might crash due to this, even if you don't care about fish, you might occasionally eat them :). We have problems with giant plastic piles in the ocean. We have problems with nuclear reactors melting down in major earthquakes. I mean yes this kind of laundry list tends to make people's eyes glaze over (in truth one can only really process one at a time) but it's true. Global warming is the most intractable problem for sure, all the others are more easily solved. But still we've got problems.
And to the extent these problems are caused by waste (ha I think some are just caused by living with a population of 7 billion, but there is really no question that American society is INCREDIBLY wasteful), then isn't it time to stop it? And whether stopping it means the current economic system continues or not, I really don't care, the human race has lived with plenty of different economic arrangements in it's stay on this planet. It is about long run (yes including future generations) health, survival, and quality of life.
Agree with you, ANM. But likely, in the O.P.'s eyes, implementing remedies for ANY of those things would equate to harming big business, and that of course is a no-no. Don't you know the only reason why the EPA's concerned about limiting greenhouse gases is because they secretly want to screw us all with higher energy costs?
Look to the Republican party to have a field day with this "news." Even though there's no consensus, even though this is ONE study (not the thousands that have demonstrated the linkage between greenhouse gases and climate change) they will absolutely grab this and start running with it. Hilarious or nauseating, depending on your perspective.
I think some of you may mis-understand the subject of the thread. We're talking about sun-spot activity and it's possible consequences to the earth's climate. Then, the question was about environmental policies, which are currently geared towards combating global warming, and the effect that a possible ice age would/should have on them.
Inferences outside that realm are not useful, but perhaps personally satisfying, I understand that. I probably shouldn't have mentioned price increases due to regulation, but our President did say that under his policies, energy prices would "necessarily skyrocket". It's not like it's a partisan comment when the actuality of that promise is mentioned.
ApatheticNoMore
6-15-11, 3:00pm
Well whether one sees energy price increases as a good thing depends not just on global warming but on 1) is energy in infinite supply? I don't think fossil fuels are and other fuels are not complete replacements and are problematic. If energy is not in infinite supply then perhaps it behooves us to conserve it. The price mechanism is the best way to do this (not necessarily though carbon trading, old fashioned taxation might work better but ....). I mean really nothing beats the efficiency of the price mechanism for this. 2) Energy conservation can have locally beneficial effects, less pollution, postponing of the increasingly risky means by which we extract energy and the pollution at the source there. Etc. 3) Increased costs of fossil fuels might increase the drive toward alternative fuels. One of the problems with alternative fuels is that they aren't price competitive at present (of course fossil fuels at present have all kinds of costs that are externalized currently and not currently accounted for in the price). Taxing them helps to internalize the externalities.
loosechickens
6-15-11, 3:18pm
It would be lovely if the sun spot activity on the sun somehow mitigated the effects of the very well documented global warming that we are causing here on earth. If nothing else, it would buy us some time, and hopefully we could put it to good purpose. But I wouldn't hold my breath.
Energy costs are going to skyrocket no matter WHAT we do, because petroleum is a finite resource, we have already gotten most of the "easy stuff", and to get at the rest of it is going to be really expensive, very dangerous to the environment and will cause lots of damage to our air, water and other things. And with a rising population and dwindling supplies, we're going to be up a creek no matter what, later if not sooner.
There are other considerations to the spewing out of pollution, greenhouse gases, etc., that have nothing to do with the warming of the planet. Our children, grandchildren, etc., are going to have to breathe the air, drink the water and live in the environment we leave them, whether they are liberal or conservative, godly or ungodly, etc. So if we foul the water, put increasing amounts of chemicals and carcinogenic materials into our lives, we can finish ourselves off with cancers, etc., as easily with that as with climate change.
Let's hope that something like sun spot activity saves our butts for awhile, because short of that, we are doing far too little, far too late, to save ourselves from some very bad consequences heading our way like a fast freight train, with us tied to the tracks.
We are in our who knows what week of 100 degree plus weather down here (no not Hades but close). I am more than ready for an ice age.
It would be lovely if the sun spot activity on the sun somehow mitigated the effects of the very well documented global warming that we are causing here on earth. If nothing else, it would buy us some time, and hopefully we could put it to good purpose. But I wouldn't hold my breath.
Energy costs are going to skyrocket no matter WHAT we do, because petroleum is a finite resource, we have already gotten most of the "easy stuff", and to get at the rest of it is going to be really expensive, very dangerous to the environment and will cause lots of damage to our air, water and other things. And with a rising population and dwindling supplies, we're going to be up a creek no matter what, later if not sooner.
There are other considerations to the spewing out of pollution, greenhouse gases, etc., that have nothing to do with the warming of the planet. Our children, grandchildren, etc., are going to have to breathe the air, drink the water and live in the environment we leave them, whether they are liberal or conservative, godly or ungodly, etc. So if we foul the water, put increasing amounts of chemicals and carcinogenic materials into our lives, we can finish ourselves off with cancers, etc., as easily with that as with climate change.
Let's hope that something like sun spot activity saves our butts for awhile, because short of that, we are doing far too little, far too late, to save ourselves from some very bad consequences heading our way like a fast freight train, with us tied to the tracks.
amen to this! I just wanted to add, i read the article and the consensus is pretty much that this won't really affect climate change, and is really more of a tiny hiccup on the march to, well, where ever climate change is taking us.
I find it odd, and a little difficult to see where exactly the republicans stand on this whole take it on the chin/gotta be tough/shoulder the responsibility to move forward thing.
I mean, on the one hand, they are all about grandma and the poor taking responsibility for fixing medicare and medicaid, and balancing the budget on the backs of the middle class because, after all, we need to tighten our belts to fix this economy. (and they keep reminding us these are tough decisions they really didn't want to make but tough times call for tough decisions.)
But on the other hand, when it comes to moving forward in shedding our dependence on fossil fuels which would help our country in so many ways (economic, security, etc) they say..not so much. When it comes to 'tough' decisions on making and keeping our environment clean and healthy, which again benefits us all, they are kind of no-show. They seem to have a problem pinning down responsibility. On themselves at least. Or rather their big donors. Who votes for these people? I mean, really, who votes to relax pollution regulation? Who votes to give big oil giant tax breaks while 'relaxing' regulations against them? who?
I put this in the Environment forum because I envisioned that as the dominant theme of the thread. Since I was seemingly wrong about that, I guess someone with the ability to do so can feel free to move it to a spot they're more comfortable with.
As long as we're making it political, Peggy can you give us a list of the giant tax breaks that big oil gets, apart from tax incentives that every other industry enjoys? I hear about them a lot but I've never been sure what they were. Thanks in advance.
gimmethesimplelife
6-15-11, 5:57pm
It would be lovely if the sun spot activity on the sun somehow mitigated the effects of the very well documented global warming that we are causing here on earth. If nothing else, it would buy us some time, and hopefully we could put it to good purpose. But I wouldn't hold my breath.
Energy costs are going to skyrocket no matter WHAT we do, because petroleum is a finite resource, we have already gotten most of the "easy stuff", and to get at the rest of it is going to be really expensive, very dangerous to the environment and will cause lots of damage to our air, water and other things. And with a rising population and dwindling supplies, we're going to be up a creek no matter what, later if not sooner.
There are other considerations to the spewing out of pollution, greenhouse gases, etc., that have nothing to do with the warming of the planet. Our children, grandchildren, etc., are going to have to breathe the air, drink the water and live in the environment we leave them, whether they are liberal or conservative, godly or ungodly, etc. So if we foul the water, put increasing amounts of chemicals and carcinogenic materials into our lives, we can finish ourselves off with cancers, etc., as easily with that as with climate change.
Let's hope that something like sun spot activity saves our butts for awhile, because short of that, we are doing far too little, far too late, to save ourselves from some very bad consequences heading our way like a fast freight train, with us tied to the tracks.Wow +1 I could not say this any better myself!
poetry_writer
6-15-11, 6:52pm
It is 100 degrees here right now. I would love it. Really, what can the average citizen do? very little in my 2 cents worth. The big corporations are the worst at putting crap in our environment. Like they care what i think.
Not only did you make it clear in your original post (now edited) that this was a political issue for you (with those stinky rotten EPA types), it's also clear that you are against any restrictions on CO2 emissions.
Assuming your question was genuinely asked in curiosity, what do YOU think, Alan, of a new ice age that will last 10 years? What happens for the millennium that follows that?
The problem with many of the climate change naysayers is that they already can't think beyond 10 years. They bark about rising energy prices without any sense of what the effects of natural resource scarcity MEANS economically. Who in their right mind thinks that, as the world population rises, and water/oil/gas/rare earth metals become increasingly dear, prices are going to remain the same?
Seriously, not a political issue. But anyone who believes this -- in any political party -- is really living in some kind of dream world.
Ten years of cooler weather is good for me -- it will buy my region some time to figure out things like water shortages and growth. But it's a tiny drop in a gigantic bucket of time yet to come.
Not only did you make it clear in your original post (now edited) that this was a political issue for you (with those stinky rotten EPA types), it's also clear that you are against any restrictions on CO2 emissions.
That's not true. Each of my posts in this thread stand as they were originally written. You may be confusing my comments with something read elsewhere.
Assuming your question was genuinely asked in curiosity, what do YOU think,
Alan, of a new ice age that will last 10 years? What happens for the millennium
that follows that?
Perhaps you didn't read the article. There is no mention of an ice age that will last 10 years. The premise is that there may be a new ice age, beginning within the next 10 years, lasting an indeterminate period. I'm not sure how I'd speculate on the next millennium without more information.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703730804576315273169397658.html
"The bill would modify a foreign-tax provision that allows the companies to receive a tax credit for every dollar of taxes they pay to foreign governments. The measure also would repeal a popular tax deduction known as the 199 deduction, which allows companies to deduct a certain percentage of their income."
and my favorite, and key to this discussion. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/americans-shared-sacrifice-big-oil-exec/story?id=13589658
particularly...."I don't think American people want shared sacrifice," John Watson, CEO of Chevron, said at a Senate Finance committee hearing today. "I think they want shared prosperity."
so, these guys think we want them to prosper while WE sacrifice for this economy. We give them incentives (i.e. money) to 'explore and develop' new sources of energy. Yea, right, like they would, i don't know, quit looking for oil to sell for obscene profit if we didn't bribe them to? Like they would just throw up their hands and stop their companies because they could only make 200 billion instead of 202 billion in profits. If you buy that line then I've got some swamp land to show you. Kind of like saying raising minimum wage 10 cents would make McDonald's close all their stores, cause, nope, not gonna do it, not gonna charge 1 penny more for our burgers, we'll just stop doing business.
You know, sometimes you just gotta look beyond the bumper sticker slogan and analyze what exactly they are saying cause so often it just doesn't pass the smell test.
I'm pretty much going with the vast majority of climatology experts, who say we're experiencing global warming caused by man made activity. Global temperatures seem to depend on many complicated interactions and I suppose there is an very unlikely chance they are wrong. If I wanted to play that bet, the stakes are very high and we really won't know for certain until it's too late. I don't want to place that bet.
One of the best books I've read on climate change is, Storms of My Grandchildren ("our last chance to save humanity"). It's extremely convincing good science written by James Hansen, who is the former director of the NASA Goddard Institute. Of course there are more experts out there saying the same thing, but it is very good. He gives several examples of how he was censored by the Bush administration.
If I started seeing an overwhelming number of experts in the ice age school of weather and it made good sense, I'd rethink things.
ApatheticNoMore
6-16-11, 4:21am
Well said Roger
Oh and I'm shocked. Shocked to find that politics is going on in this thread! ;)
San Onofre Guy
6-16-11, 12:21pm
It is June 16 and from my office window in Southern California I still see SNOW!
ApatheticNoMore
6-16-11, 2:47pm
Just be glad. It's in the upper 70s all week here (and of course that's a dry "heat" - haha as if you can even call such near perfect weather "heat", though the apartment tends to retain some heat so I have used a floor fan a little bit - of course it's not hot enough for A/C).
The rest of the country broils in a record heat wave, just be glad. Who knows what might be in store for us as the summer continues. It would be pretty darn funny though if the weather just kept getting worse and worse in the rest of the country and kept getting more and more perfect in California (it might finally justify the ridiculous housing prices). But don't count on it.
For those who think scientists don't know what they are talking about when it comes to climate change influenced by humans, why would they think the scientists would do any better when it comes to climate change influenced by sunspots?
loosechickens
6-16-11, 3:22pm
"For those who think scientists don't know what they are talking about when it comes to climate change influenced by humans, why would they think the scientists would do any better when it comes to climate change influenced by sunspots?"(creaker)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, Creaker.......wonderful!
For those who think scientists don't know what they are talking about when it comes to climate change influenced by humans, why would they think the scientists would do any better when it comes to climate change influenced by sunspots?
There has been a continuous record of sunspot activity going back for at least 400 years. There is also the well documented Maunder Minimum, which correlates with a decrease in sunspot activity during the same time period: See NASA's discussion on sunspots at http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml
Early records of sunspots indicate that the Sun went through a period of inactivity in the late 17th century. Very few sunspots were seen on the Sun from about 1645 to 1715 (38 kb JPEG image) (http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_yearly.jpg). Although the observations were not as extensive as in later years, the Sun was in fact well observed during this time and this lack of sunspots is well documented. This period of solar inactivity also corresponds to a climatic period called the "Little Ice Age" when rivers that are normally ice-free froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower altitudes. There is evidence that the Sun has had similar periods of inactivity in the more distant past. The connection between solar activity and terrestrial climate is an area of on-going research
Regardless of what science or politicians say, wouldn't it be the smart thing to do to look for more sustainable ways of living and doing business? Treating the earth's resources like an endless piggy bank and living mindless, consumptive lifestyles does not bode well for any of us. Common sense, isn't it?
Maybe global warming will cancel out the solar activity induced ice age and nothing will change:)
Maybe global warming will cancel out the solar activity induced ice age and nothing will change:)
I like that theory - but could you send us just a little rain down here in Texas - it is looking pretty bleak these days.
Peace
loosechickens
6-16-11, 11:33pm
I guess for the moment, only Godless southern CA is enjoying perfect weather......although I should probably take that back in case I trigger the "Big One"...... ;-)
I'll stick with your original question, Alan, because I think it's an interesting one. I think that both groups of scientists could be correct; one theory doesn't necessarily negate the other at all. I don't know that a mini ice-age would necessarily cancel out the effects of our current climate disruption, although it might help with things like melting of polar ice caps. The thing that's unprecedented here is that the last mini ice age came before the industrial revolution. Things simply shifted back to normal when it was over. This time, even if we do have a brief cooling period, we're still madly damaging and depleting the environment. If this mini cooling period merely delays the damage done - sort of like building up poisonous gas in the basement before opening the door - things could be dramatically Worse than if we'd had no ice age at all.
Since our current policies regarding the environment are rather appalling, I can't say I hope things go on business as usual, but I sure hope this new finding doesn't encourage anyone to be an even worse steward of the environment than they are now.
For those who think scientists don't know what they are talking about when it comes to climate change influenced by humans, why would they think the scientists would do any better when it comes to climate change influenced by sunspots?
This made my morning. Thanks, Creaker.
The recent issue of The Economist had an interesting article on predicted solar activity. Appearently there are some predictors that may indicate a quiet period of solar activity in the next few years, and these have been associated with cool global temperatures historically. These periods have lasted around 50 years in duration. The last paragraph is interesting.
"And it is interesting news for those who worry about global warming. If the Maunder and Dalton minima actually did affect the climate, then a new one might counteract the effects of the extra greenhouse gases people are now pumping into the atmosphere—at least, until the solar cycle returns. Whether the breathing space thus granted would be used wisely or squandered is another matter."
http://www.economist.com/node/18833483
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.